Chapter 1

1.1 Background

It is widely known that writing skill is considered as one of the most difficult skill
for student to learn and teacher to teach (Al Murshidi, 2014) in English as Foreign Language
(EFL) class. EFL writing teachers seek method that can help student accomplished the
ultimate goal in EFL writing class, which is to communicate message effectively in their
writing. Commonly, one of the most used processes that these teachers do is the written
error feedback. In Second Language Acquisition (SLA) literature, the support for correction
can be found, such as in Swain’s (1985) output hypothesis, which stated that when the
students receive feedback from their tasks, it would confirm or disconfirm rules form.
Furthermore, based on comprehensible output theory (ibid), corrective feedback will force
students to improve their accuracy and make them be able to be more effective in expressing
the meaning. Teachers usually use one of two methods of written error feedback: “uncoded”
correction (Lee, 2004: 287) – writing the correct forms above each error – or coded
annotation, using the symbols to encourage learners to self-correct (Olsher 1995).

Andrew Sampson’s (2012) in his research with the title, “Coded and uncoded error
feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Columbian EFL learner’s writing” (System,
Vol. 40), reports a study comparing the effects of uncoded and coded correction on
Columbian EFL learners’ writing. The study finds although both coded and uncoded
correction appear to aid learners’ written work, coded feedback seems to be more effective
to help learner recognizing and correcting errors in their written work and also producing
correct forms in subsequent pieces of work (Sampson 2012). Furthermore, it is found that
students prefer coded feedback a lot as with the help of the correction codes they get
enough opportunity to know about their mistakes and to correct them as well (Yugandhar
2014).

However, a coded error feedback is uncommonly use in the practice of a writing

subject in the Second Language Teacher Education in IAIN Surakarta. Commonly, the
SLTE students have no opportunity to receive feedback of their error in writing and even
 less chance to correct their mistake by themselves. Such condition, will make students
become frustrated as they do not get enough guidance for their improvement (Yugandhar
2014). The purpose of the study is to measure the effectiveness of coded correction symbol
to improve students’ ability in correcting their mistakes by themselves and their future
written production.

1.2 Aim of study

The study aims to answer the following research question:

1. What are teacher practice regarding the error correction in writing?

2. What does the effect of error feedback in improving students self-correction ability in
L2 writing ?
 Chapter 2

Review of Literature

2.1.1 Error Correction Feedback

Advocates of corrective feedback have produced research evidence that supports
the potential benefits of providing written error correction.
Bitchener (2008) conducted a two-month study on the efficacy of written error
correction to seventy-five low intermediate international ESL students in
Auckland, New Zealand. The aim of the study was to investigate whether
corrective feedback on ESL student writing resulted in improved accuracy in L2
essay writing over a two-month period; and to investigate whether there is an
effect on accuracy for different corrective feedback methods. The students were
assigned to four groups, three of which received written corrective feedback, and
the other one, a control group; received no corrective feedback. The results of the
study show that with respect to accuracy, students who received written
corrective feedback outperformed those in the control group. In addition, results
of the study show that the students‘ level of performance was retained two
months later when further examination was conducted.

2.1.2 Correction Code:

Correction symbols refer to the indication of types and locations of students’

mistakes through the use of correction codes such as those suggested by Oshima
and Hogue (1997). The application of correction codes is “normally done by
underlining the mistakes and using some kind of symbols to focus the attention of
the students on the kind of mistake they have made” (Byrne, 1988, p. 125).
System of signals to the pupil in order to help him to know what he is looking for
before he has acquired much proof-reading skill” Bright and McGregor (1970, p.
156). In addition, “this technique makes correction neater and less threatening
 than masses of red ink and helps students to find and identify their mistakes”
(Hyland, 2003, p.181) and “makes correction look less damaging” (Harmer, 2007,
p. 121) . “These also have the advantage of encouraging students to think about
what the mistake is, so that they can correct themselves” (ibid., 2001, p. 111),
correction codes encourage students to look at writing as a skill that can be
improved, and train them in looking for areas of improvement (Hedge, 2000, p.
316). Students can therefore correct their mistakes because their mistakes occur in
“the hurly-burly of conversation where there are many things to get right at the
same time. The learner knows the right form, but produces the wrong one”
(Johnson, 2001, p. 335).

2.1.2 The Impact of Code Correction on the students

The use of error codes to help students correct their writing has often been
propounded in the literature as an effective method to facilitate error correction. It
is believed to be a useful method of helping students to correct their own errors.
As both All wright (1975) and Long (1977) point out, it is important for teachers
not to correct learner errors or give the right answers to them immediately. Cues
should be given to the students so that they can correct their own errors. This will
further activate their linguistic competence. Lalande (1982) found that American
students who used error codes to correct errors in German had greater
improvement in writing than the students who had their errors corrected by their
teachers. Mantello (1997) found that coded feedback was effective for weak
students. Makino (1993) showed that Japanese learners of English were helped to
correct errors better when cues were given than when they were not. Kubota
(2001) also reports that her Japanese learners found coding errors useful in
helping them correct errors.
Lee (1997) did carry out a study on the students‘ performance in error correction
with Hong Kong English learners. However, she has reservations about using
error codes. Though she suggests that error feedback is more desirable than overt
correction, she warns teachers that error feedback with the help of error codes
must be handled with care. Thus, what is reported in the literature mainly focuses
 on whether error codes help error correction. This study attempts to investigate
the usefulness of error codes to help English learners correct their errors more
successfully. In an attempt to examine the effectiveness of using correction
symbols to give feedback in the writing process, the teacher hypothesizes that the
provision of correction symbols strategy would have positive effects on
promoting learners‘ self-correction and would improve their written production.
Before looking further into the use of correction codes
Riddell (2001, p. 157) states that teachers can use correction symbols (correction
codes) to give feedback to students on their writing, and teachers can underline
the errors to signify the mistakes and write the symbols for these mistakes in the
margin. Then students can correct the mistakes by themselves. Hedge (1988,
p.151) suggests that teachers can indicate ―an error and identify the kind of error
with a symbol, e.g. wo = wrong word order‖. This means that teacher can use
correction codes when giving feedback on writing tasks and then students should
find out the errors they made from the symbols and re-write it again with the
corrected mistakes. This strategy ―encourages learner independence‖ (Riddell,
2001, p. 152) and students become more responsible for their learning.

2.2 Hypothesis
In an attempt to examine the effectiveness of using correction symbols to
give feedback in the writing process, the teacher hypothesizes that the provision of correction
symbols strategy would have positive effects on promoting learners’ self-correction and would
improve their written production.
Participants: